at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. also, be sure to scan the q.r. code to listen to our companion podcast, where you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed, our republic thrives. get informed straight from the source. on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> was. host: in historic times it is

helpful to turn to ray smock who served as the historian of the house of representatives for decades. good morning to you. we possibly could see a second speaker vote in less than 11 months. the houses operating under an interim speaker pro tem and one of america's closest allies is now in a state of war. in historical terms that there some analogy you would point to or what is your thinking about today as we watch this go down? guest: as we know this is unprecedented. we have never had a speaker rejected by a motion to vacate in the history of the country. we have had many occasions where there is been turmoil on the floor of the house and difficulty electing a speaker. probably the longest and most contentious speaker contest was

that the annual banks before the civil war. they took 133 ballots before he was elected and it took two months to get a speaker elected. at that time there were multiple parties. the republican party was a new party. there was a lot of tension over the issue of slavery. we were just a few years from the civil war. in kansas the civil war was already going on. whenever there is tension in the country. whenever there is turmoil and division that frequently reflects itself in the house of representatives. the house is supposed to be a balancing party where we come together to hammer out our differences. when those differences are so extreme it is difficult. in that case it took forever to elect a speaker.

we had other occasions where speakers have been contested. there've only been three incidents where anything close to a motion to vacate. the first was in 1910 with joe cannon, who was a strong speaker. he was called a czar. he was like an autocrat. he ran the house with an iron hand. his own party decided to break with him. they did not want him out of the office but they wanted his control of the rules committee to be limited. it took a huge effort to undo that. and then speaker cannon asked for a motion to vacate because he knew he would win it. he wanted to see if he still had control of the chamber.

he won that but he lost the power to control the rules committee that was a huge change in the rules of the house and a big fight in 1910. we do not have anything close to the motion to vacate until more recently when he was in congress, mark meadows had a motion to vacate speaker john boehner. he did not bring it on the floor. he sent it to committee. it was never used. john boehner was closer to resigning. he cannot deal with his own conference anymore. he left. just recently, the thing with speaker mccarthy where it surprised everyone that such a small number of house republicans could unseat their own speaker.

that was because of a rule that kevin mccarthy agreed to that one member of the house could bring up a motion to vacate and it would be a motion that would have to be taken up on the floor . to everyone's surprise, when matt gaetz introduced that the speaker was removed and here we are in the crisis. we better resolve this because the speaker is second in line to the president the end of area important constitutional officer and we cannot have that office vacant and that house and turmoil especially with all the things going on in the world. host: here is where we are on october 11. the house republican conference is getting set to meet in just under one hour. they will be meeting in a room on capitol hill, a camera set up outside that room, waiting to

see if any members stop by and make comments ahead of that meeting. in that meeting they are expected to possibly hash out who they will be supporting for speaker if they come to an agreement we could see a vote around 3:00 eastern today. that is what we know, but there are a lot of unknowns as we wait to see what happens. we are joined by ray smock, former house historian on the history of this moment. you mentioned joe cannon calling him one of the stronger speakers in history. how do you think history will view speaker mccarthy? do you think he will be seen as a week speaker or somebody who was undone by the rules he agreed to? guest: if kevin mccarthy does not come back -- there is still some talk the republican conference might bring him back

-- that is at least speculation. if his speakership ends at 269 days, he will go down as the second shortest tenure in the office and will have no major accomplishments and the fact that his election was contested and he agreed to this poison pill rule that one person could call for his ouster, that does not bode well for him in history. it is too new. i am a historian. i to wait for the dust to settle. i cannot make a prediction about how history will view him. certainly right now he does not rank anywhere near the strong speakers we have had in the past . speakers who are able to control

their conference. i will tell you one story from 1925, when speaker nicholas longworth -- the longworth house office building was named for him -- when he became speaker the first thing he did was punish 24 members of his own party because they failed to vote for calvin coolidge in the 1924 election. he stripped them of their committee assignments and reduced their tenure and their seniority as a punishment for not being loyal to the party. that is taking strong action. he got away with it. he was a very likable guy and a very popular speaker. he did not tolerate much dissension within his own conference. that is a different era, different speaker, and certainly

different circumstances than we are witnessing today. host: we are at the centennial of calvin coolidge ascending to the presidency. plenty of coverage of that on american history tv. if you have questions for ray smock on the house of representatives, he is with us for the next 20 minutes on the washington journal phone lines for republicans, democrats, independents. we have talked before about the expanding powers of the executive branch of the presidency, especially post-world war ii. i wonder when it comes to the speaker of the house, has there been a similar expansion of the powers of the speaker in the modern era? host: in the early history of the country the speaker was not that important office. it was important, it was a constitutional office since the beginning.

duties as speaker have increased. the party leader, the chief administration are of the house of representatives, the national negotiator on all issues, always in the big meetings when congress is meeting with the president, it is the duties -- the duties of the speaker have expanded greatly over time. it has always been an important constitutional office. when new degree in great became speaker in 1995, he saw the speakership as a way to rival the presidency itself. he tried to use his strong powers. we had government shutdowns but we also had newt gingrich working with president bill clinton. we had a balanced budget passed.

the two of them working together. no speaker since newt gingrich is tried to exert enough power to rattle the presidency. host: what is your understanding of the duties of an interim speaker pro tem? (202) 748-8000 -- guest: the idea of interim as part of a speaker pro tem resulted after 9/11. the idea the cabinet could have been attacked and probably was going to be attacked and so some succession had to be figured out , and so a list of potential -- if the speaker was incapacitated than someone else would come in as an interim speaker.

there is no good indication of the powers of that individual to conduct the full scale of business that the house needs to do to perform, especially passing appropriations bills. it is a placeholder more than anything else and there is no good precedent for how an interim president pro tem acts. the idea of a speaker pro tem -- the speaker pro tem, all that means is whoever is in the chair that day as a speaker for the time being. the house runs itself that way. the speaker in the chair -- during the house procedures there is usually someone designated called the speaker pro tem. host: this is stephen in

california, line for democrats. you are on with ray smock. caller: i have a quick question. you mentioned the current speaker was the second shortest. it was the first shortest tenure? guest: there are two answers to that. one is michael kerr in 1876. he died in office. he was only speaker 267 days, two day shorter than kevin mccarthy. there was a strange event that occurred in 1869, where a speaker was elected for one day. that was theodore pomeroy of new york. the reason is that the former speaker, skyler covax, had just been elected vice president. colfax was resigning to become

vice president so they needed a speaker, it was the last day of the session. thomas pomeroy was only speaker for one day. host: this is why we love having you stop by. this is carolyn in georgetown, delaware. republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i guess my question is that even though we do not have a speaker right now, are all committees still functioning as usual and i would like to make the comment that i hope everyone unites behind jim jordan. i feel that kevin mccarthy let us down when he let the congress take a break after the devon archer testimony. he should not ever have allowed congress to take that break.

my concern is about the committee. guest: your right to be concerned about the committees. that is where congress does its work. the committees are meeting -- i am not sure how that work in the committees gets transferred through the rules committee and onto the floor. you need a speaker to help guide what legislation does come to the floor through the rules committee. it looks to me like nothing has been passed, nothing can be passed even though the committee is working. host: this is michael out of reno, nevada. independent.

good morning. caller: what you think about this idea, that since the house is almost divided 51% to 49% that monday, wednesday, and friday the republicans could have the speaker and tuesdays and thursdays the democrats could have their speaker of the house? instead of just speaking into empty air, why isn't attendance required? in other words, they speak not just to the moderator but the whole audience so everyone would be required to listen. you need an audience there. host: ray smock? caller: the floor of congress, seldom there are very many members on the floor unless there is a vote. that is the way it has always been.

members of congress are doing committee work, they are meeting with constituents, they are doing all kinds of things and sitting on the floor is only part of their duties. when there is something extraordinary or some huge issue they are facing, then they will all be there. most of the time the motion on the floor is independent of anything related to all of the other things going on in the vast complex that makes up the capital. i will tell you what one strong speaker in the 1890's said about the minority. that was speaker thomas brackett reed, a republican who had the strong majority. he said the purpose of the minority is to help us draw your

paychecks. it will be the majority party that rules. in one way or the other, that is the way it has been. host: one of the callers was asking about committee work. i want to focus on one committee. the house ethics committee. the reason i ask is it was congressman don bacon on this program earlier today saying that when it comes to george santos and the latest allegations against the republican from new york, healed there would be an ethics committee -- he hoped there would be an ethics committee investigation. guest: the ethics committee knows its job is to police wrongdoing by members of the house. it is their job to pay attention to those things. whether or not they need to launch a full ethics committee

investigation is for them to determine. i don't know what information they have. i suppose that was the first step before any efforts to expel airports to force a resignation. given the charges that have been brought against congressman santos, it does raise the bar for his removal. host: does the ethics committee operate like the other committees where the membership is determined by proportion of control of the house? caller: eight used -- guest: it used to be an equal number of members. it was one of the few committees where it was a joint operation

not based on a majority. i don't know how it is functioning right now, to tell you the truth. host: the in new york, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i think kevin mccarthy was a fine speaker and they tied him hand and foot. i love steve scalise and jim jordan. steve scalise i worry about his health. jim jordan was a great chairman of the judiciary committee. what i am concerned about is your congressman bacon said earlier that the house pass hr to to close the border but it will not go through the senate. the thing i am most concerned about is they say the try to put hakeem jeffries in which is a

frightening person to me. if the keim jeffries were in charge of the house, nothing would get done. what is your comment? guest: first of all, i do not think hakeem jeffries will become speaker because the majority party still makes that decision. the majority party gets to elect the speaker. it has never been a case where the majority has not elected a speaker. in the past when there was not a clear majority -- i do not think you have to be concerned about that happening. the question is who can the republican conference rally

behind and can that person pick up the pieces and move the congress forward? host: when was the last effective bipartisan coalition that made things happen in the house? there is a lot of talk about the problem solvers caucus. there were members on the republican side who were upset the democrats did not help save kevin mccarthy's speakership, wondering whether they should break up the problem solvers caucus. historically, when was last time one of these coalitions was able to operate effectively? guest: the truth of the matter is up until about the 1980's, the republican party and the democratic party, regardless of who had the majority, there were always factions within the party and both parties come up until the 1980's had liberals and

conservatives within that party. in effect we had a four party system. everyone call themselves liberal republicans or conservative republicans and the same with the democrats. whenever party was in control usually had to figure out a way to keep their own party together and then sometimes move into -- if it was a liberal measure they would have to move to the liberals on the democrat side if the democrats were in charge. i was there when speaker tip o'neill and ronald reagan was president and the democrats had a majority in the house and the reagan revolution was underway. tip o'neill was not stopping at. he would say i can stop it only if i have the votes, i do not have the votes.

that is because he could not control all of the democrats. some of the conservative democrats were on board with the reagan program. right now the thing making it so hard for everybody as the parties are so polarized. there is not much cooperation. there are two powers and they are not communicating with one another as well as they should. the fact that it is so close, such a tight thing, it is the polarization and the extremism of the politics where there is no cooperation and no compromise. the art of politics is compromise and we are not seeing much of that. that is where it gets into how well the body works. host: when did that four party system you described start to break up and melt into two? guest: it started in the 1980's

and rapidly increased and took on a new role when the republicans got control of the house of representatives again in 1994. one of newt gingrich's ideas was to be more strident. do not think of your opponent as your colleague. that increased with the rise of the two party system and other things on the republican side. the democratic party is a left of center party, but given that both parties look polarized, we

still have to find ways to pass legislation. at some point there has to be give-and-take regardless of who does the giving and taking. we need the appropriations bill. otherwise in 30 days we will shut the government down. host: five or 10 minutes left with ray smock. taking your calls as we wait to see what will happen with the speaker vote today and what will happen in this republican conference meeting set to begin at 10:00 eastern. this is art in ohio, democrat, good morning. host: -- caller: i just wanted to repair correct -- to correct something the historian said. in 1993 the democrats passed the bounce budget act without one republican voting for it. in 1995 the republicans took the

house back and they tried to sabotage that, they close the government down. they did the same thing in 1996. in 1997, by than the balanced budget act was working and they did some kind of compromise, but not until 1997 with newt gingrich and the republicans come to some kind of compromise. host: ray smock? guest: i agree with your chronology. host: tulsa, oklahoma is next. mark, good morning. caller: is good to talk to the american people. let me talk to you jonathan, real quick. american people come if you want real entertainment call in and tell them to put mark cunningham on the show for 30 minutes.

you can bring anyone you want. i will challenge them. mr. smock? what you think of this government. you talk about this tug-of-war, these two power systems that keep us on the rope and we go nowhere. how about we go somewhere? it is a government based on plato's writing 2400 years ago. it is a pyramid scheme of the egyptian pyramids that ties often goes nowhere. let's go somewhere. let's quit giving the central government so much power over health care, military, media. if you look at fox news, you have a gentleman who owns that company and is passing it on to his son.

we will follow this with the murdoch family owning all of these local channels? host: a lot there. guest: i think when this nation was founded it was founded with a lot of thought about what ancient governments were like, what republicans were like, they looked at the ancient republics of greece and rome and then shape something new. a new larger republic. we are always going to argue how large government should be and how small it should be. the differences between the parties are lined up along that. the democrats see government as a positive good and the republicans see government as something that should be limited and smaller and less involved in the lives of the people. that is a struggle that has been

played out through our entire history. how much government is enough, how much government is not enough. we have seen times when the government rescued the people. during the depression in the 1930's. we needed a strong government to get through world wars. other times in our histories, we were talking about joe cannon in the 1890's and into the early 20th century, he was happy with the way the country was running, he said this country is working fine and does not need legislation. that is extreme. do not even bother to pass bills, we are doing fine. that is the struggle. you have described it and you can continue to argue that as long as the republic survives. how strong the government is, how weak the government should

be, that will ebb and flow depending on circumstances. host: a final question, it may be unfair for a historian. any interest in trying to predict what will happen today in the house? guest: i cannot protect that. there is some talk about kevin mccarthy sneaking under the tent and coming back. that would be quite interesting. i do not have a vote so i do not have a magic wand for who will come out of the speakership. whoever it is, not the two contenders. maybe somebody else. it is a very interesting day and i will be watching like everybody else. host: he may not have a vote but he has a history. former house historian